SORIANO VS.

LAGUARDIA

Facts:

On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang
Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made the following remarks:
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae
ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o
di ba!  O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan.  Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang
babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.[1]  x x x

After a preliminary conference in which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB, by Order of

August 16, 2004, preventively suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan program for
20 days, in accordance with Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1986, creating
the MTRCB, in relation to Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004 Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure.
[5] 
 The same order also set the case for preliminary investigation.

On September 27, 2004, in Adm. Case No. 01-04, the MTRCB issued a decisionfinding
respondent Soriano liable for his utterances and thereby imposing on him a penalty of
three (3) months suspension from his program, "Ang Dating Daan"

Issues:
Whether or not Soriano can invoke his right for freedom of speech.
Ruling:
No.
Even if we concede that petitioner's remarks are not obscene but
merely indecent speech, still the Court rules that petitioner cannot
avail himself of the constitutional protection of free speech. Said
statements were made in a medium easily accessible to children. With
respect... to the young minds, said utterances are to be treated as
unprotected speech.
Petitioner's flawed belief that he may simply utter gutter profanity on
television without adverse consequences, under the guise of free
speech, does... not lend itself to acceptance in this jurisdiction. We
repeat: freedoms of speech and expression are not absolute
freedoms.  To say "any act that restrains speech should be greeted
with furrowed brows" is not to say that any act that restrains or
regulates speech or... expression is per se invalid.  This only
recognizes the importance of freedoms of speech and expression, and
indicates the necessity to carefully scrutinize acts that may restrain or
regulate speech.

Ayer Vs Capulong
FACTS:

Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker, and his movie production company, Ayer
Productions, envisioned, sometime in 1987, for commercial viewing and for Philippine
and international release, the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. The
proposed motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was endorsed by the
MTRCB as and other government agencies consulted. Ramos also signified his
approval of the intended film production. It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-
series television play, presented in a "docu-drama" style, creating four fictional
characters interwoven with real events, and utilizing actual documentary footage as
background. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use, appropriation,
reproduction and/or exhibition of his name, or picture, or that of any member of his
family in any cinema or television production, film or other medium for advertising or
commercial exploitation. petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was
deleted from the movie script, and petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion
picture. However, a complaint was filed by Enrile invoking his right to privacy. RTC
ordered for the desistance of the movie production and making of any reference to
plaintiff or his family and from creating any fictitious character in lieu of plaintiff which
nevertheless is based on, or bears substantial or marked resemblance to Enrile. Hence
the appeal.

 Issue:

Whether or Not freedom of expression was violated

HELD :

The right of privacy of a "public figure" is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen. Private respondent has not retired into the seclusion of simple private
citizenship. he continues to be a "public figure." After a successful political campaign
during which his participation in the EDSA Revolution was directly or indirectly referred
to in the press, radio and television, he sits in a very public place, the Senate of the
Philippines. The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant case between
the constitutional freedom of speech and of expression and the right of privacy, may be
marked out in terms of a requirement that the proposed motion picture must be fairly
truthful and historical in its presentation of events.
 LAGUNSAD VS. SOTTO

FACTS:
            Sometime in August, 1961, petitioner Manuel Lagunzad, began the production of
a movie entitled "The Moises Padilla Story". It was based mainly on the copyrighted but
unpublished book of Atty. Ernesto Rodriguez, Jr., entitled "The Long Dark Night in
Negros" subtitled "The Moises Padilla Story".
The book narrates the events which culminated in the murder of Moises Padilla
who was then a mayoralty candidate of the Nacionalista Party for the Municipality of
Magallon, Negros Occidental, during the November, 1951 elections. Governor Rafael
Lacson, a member of the Liberal Party then in power and his men were tried and
convicted for that murder. In the book, Moises Padilla is portrayed as "a martyr in
contemporary political history."
Although the emphasis of the movie was on the public life of Moises Padilla, there
were portions which dealt with his private and family life including the portrayal in
some scenes, of his mother, Maria Soto Vda. de Gonzales, private respondent herein,
and of one "Auring" as his girlfriend. 
On October 5, 1961, Mrs. Nelly Amante, half-sister of Moises Padilla, for and in
behalf of her mother, private respondent, demanded in writing for certain changes,
corrections and deletions in the movie.  
            Petitioner contended in his Answer that the episodes in the life of Moises Padilla
depicted in the movie were matters of public knowledge and was a public figure; that
private respondent has no property right over those incidents.

ISSUE:

         Whether or not right of freedom of expression can infringe the right to privacy.

RULING:

No.

From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right
is not susceptible of any limitation. No law may be passed abridging the freedom of
speech and of the press. It would be too much to insist that at all times and under all
circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal
values that press for recognition.
The prevailing doctrine is that the clear and present danger rule is such a
limitation. Another criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of speech and of the
press, which includes such vehicles of the mass media as radio, television and the
movies, is the "balancing-of-interests test."  The principle requires a court to take
conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given
situation or type of situation." 
In the case at bar, the interests observable are the right to privacy asserted by
respondent and the right of -freedom of expression invoked by petitioner. Taking into
account the interplay of those interests, the limits of freedom of expression are reached
when expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern.

VIVA PRODUCTION VS. WEBB

FACTS:
 
 Assailed in the petition before us are the decision and resolution of respondent Court
of Appeals sustaining both the order of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital
Judicial Region (Parañaque, Branch 274
Herein after referred to as the Parañaque court) restraining "the exhibition of the movie 'The Jessica
Alfaro Story' at its scheduled premiere showing at the New Frontier Theater on September 11, 1995 at
7:30 in the evening and at its regular public exhibition beginning September 13, 1995, as well as to
cease and desist from promoting and marketing of the said movie. writ of preliminary injunction
"enjoining petitioner from further proceeding, engaging, using or implementing the promotional,
advertising and marketing programs for the movie entitled 'The Jessica Alfaro Story' and from showing
or causing the same to be shown or exhibited in all theaters in the entire country UNTIL after the final
termination and logical conclusion of the trial in the criminal action now pending before the Parañaque
Regional Trial Court. Ma. Jessica M. Alfaro the star witness of the Vizconde massacre was offered a
movie contract by Viva Productions, Inc. for the filming of her life story, she inked with the latter the said
movie contract while the said case (I.S. 95-402) was under investigation by the Department of Justice.
The private respondent sent separate letters to Viva Productions, Inc. and Alfaro, warning them that
the projected showing of subject movie on the life story of Alfaro would violate the sub judice rule, and
his (Hubert J.P. Webb's) constitutional rights as an accused in said criminal case.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE PARAÑAQUE COURT CAN TOTALLY DISREGARD
AND INDISCRIMINATELY CURTAIL PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OF THE PRESS WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF
A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
RULING:
In view of the foregoing disposition, we find no further need to resolve the issue of
whether or not there was valid and lawful denial by both lower courts of petitioner's right
to free speech and expression. Suffice it to mention, however, that the Court takes note
of the rather unreasonable period that had elapsed from the time of the issuance of the
restraining order by the Parañaque court up to the writing of this decision. The Court
also notes that the order of the said court specifically failed to lay down any factual
basis constituting a clear and present danger which will justify prior restraint of the
constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression save its plea for time to
hear and resolve the issues raised in the petition for contempt.
the assailed decision and order of respondent court are hereby SET ASIDE, and a new
one entered declaring null and void all orders of Branch 58 of the Regional Trial Court of
the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Makati City in its Civil Case No. 95-
1365 and forthwith dismissing said case, and declaring the order of the Regional Trial
Court of the same National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Parañaque (Branch
274), functus officio insofar as it restrains the public showing of the movie "The Jessica
Alfaro Story."

PEOPLE VS PEREZ

Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and Fortunato

Lodovice, a citizen of that municipality, happening to meet on the morning
of April 1, 1922, in the presidencia of Pilar, they became engaged in a
discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General Wood, which
resulted in Perez shouting a number of times: "The Filipinos, like myself,
must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad
thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our independence." Charged in the
Court of First Instance of Sorsogon with a violation of Act no. 292.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Act. No. 292 abriged the freedom of speech.

Ruling:
No.
It is of course fundamentally true that the provisions of Act No. 292 must
not be interpreted so as to abridge the freedom of speech and the right of
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress
of grievances. Criticism is permitted to penetriate even to the foundations
of Government. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the
Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of
speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious. But when the intention
and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of freedom of
speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive
measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the
supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the existence of the State.